RECONCILIATION

RECONCILIATION

(I wrote the following as a part of a statement of philosophy regarding addressing diversity and reconciliation issues at the community level.)

The brokenness in human relationships is as old as human memory and the effect of brokenness between individuals and groups continues to plague our individual and community lives on a daily basis.  While many appeal to a higher ideal with words like “tolerance” and “acceptance” and even “reconciliation”, it is clear from human history and current circumstance that these higher ideals are not the natural course of human behavior.  If they were natural and common, celebrated heroes such as Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr. and the recently passed Nelson Mandela would not be seen as exceptional but as the norm in human experience.  Rather, it seems based on even casual observation that the norm for human behavior is to create and perpetuate division.  It takes intentionality, commitment and just plain hard work to address human brokenness.  Simply holding up the ideal and expecting people to choose that ideal will not do the job.  Only the already convinced will see this strategy as effective, but they will ultimately be frustrated by its lack of genuine impact on individuals and the community as a whole.  

We see this “higher ideals” based strategy employed regularly in what have become traditional approaches to diversity education.  The basic approach can be summarized in these steps:

·         IF we present people with good information about the issue of diversity, and
·         IF we present people with good stories of diverse people who really are “just like 
            everyone else” (Is that really the goal?), and
·         IF we challenge people to live up to the higher ideals of tolerance and acceptance,

·         THEN we will improve the relational climate in our community for people of all 
            backgrounds and everyone will be “happy.”

Specific examples of this approach include “Diversity Days”, “Multicultural Fairs”, “International Dinners” and the like.  While these events are valuable experiences in a community approach that addresses diversity, it is my opinion that these approaches fail to address the root causes of the division that exists and the reasons why it continues to exist in spite of people knowing about higher ideals.   Perhaps most importantly, these approaches tend to appeal only to those who already are already convinced – “preaching to the saved” so to speak.

(Now some additional thoughts on the subject of Reconciliation)

By virtue of my work in schools, church, and the community, I have the privilege of observing and interacting with a variety of viewpoints on many subjects. Reconciliation is certainly one of them.  There seem to be two pervasive approaches to brokenness in community relationships that I see played out.  In both cases there is an attempt to deal with the perceived or real differences experienced.

The first can be summarized in words few people would ever say out loud but which many live “out loud” with their lives: 

“As soon as those people change, we won’t have any problem getting along.”  

The second, again in words few people say but still get lived out: 

“I have met some of those people who aren’t like that and we get along fine.”  

Of course, both of these are rigid extremes on a continuum.  But for the sake of the discussion, they represent two schools of thought that are fairly common.  I also think that they represent two sides of the same coin.  Both are saying that if people who are NOT like me ARE (or become) like me, we will get along well.  We will be reconciled.  In the first case, “those people need to change and become like me.”  In the second, “I know some people of those people who are just like me.”  Both seem to address an outward set of behaviors that may or may not have anything to do with actually bringing about useful reconciliation between individuals or between groups within an organization, community or nation.  

So much of what is done to encourage understanding across divisions (race, nationality, religion, economic class, etc.) is based on viewing the positives about each other.  It emphasizes what we share in common and points toward building relationships based on those commonalities.  There is nothing wrong with that approach.  In fact, it’s good stuff and important in dealing with any type of diversity in a community.

But it’s not reconciliation.

Reconciliation is about healing and restoring broken relationships. And in order for that to be done, the relationship that is broken must be both present and exposed.  

To be present, both parties have to be equally involved.  There can be no reconciliation, no matter how much I may want there to be so, if I am the only one dealing with the issue.  Reconciliation requires the bringing together of two parties.  It is not achieved by the good will of one of those parties.  

To be exposed, the actual brokenness must be looked at for what it is.  How did we get this way?  What have been my (our) experiences that resulted in this brokenness?  It requires self-examination and self-disclosure in the presence of “the other.”  Beyond that, the relationship itself has to be looked at honestly – not just understanding oneself or understanding the other, but looking at the stuff in between each other – that which only exists when both are present.

This is hard, uncomfortable work.  And not natural.

But it is the stuff of legends!  And amazing things take place when real reconciliation occurs.  This was the brilliance of what Nelson Mandela brought to brokenness in his beloved South Africa when he was released from 27 years of imprisonment and began to work not on getting what he deserved for the injustice he has suffered.  Instead, he began a work of reconciliation through the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, among other things, that resulted in an astonishingly peaceful transition from minority white rule to a democratically elected President Mandela.  

Mandela and South Africa are a model for what reconciliation must be.  It cannot be just focusing on commonalities or pretending that the problems don’t exist or letting bygones be bygones.  We can’t “just all get along.”  It’s not our nature.  True reconciliation requires the presence and exposure of the relationship that needs to be reconciled.  The wound must be opened and cleansed (often painfully) or the infection will fester.

For those who are followers of Christ, we have an even better example of reconciliation in the sacrifice of Jesus.  For those who are not followers of Christ, consider the point of the story.  A relationship was broken, in this case between the Creator God and his people.  The reconciliation took place through painful sacrifice which resulted in both parties being able to experience a restored relationship.  In this case, only Jesus paid the penalty, but the reconciliation requires both parties (Jesus and anyone who enters into relationship with him) and requires an honest examination of the consequence of the brokenness.  The crucifixion was not a nice thing.

Reconciliation is hard work and often painful.  But it can be done and it is worth the work and the cost.  Consider your role in reconciliation in your home, your church, at your job, in your community.  There is no greater work than to heal brokenness in people and in their relationships!